About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
and fellow vietnam veteran john mccain jump all over hagel for opposing the surge in iraq. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said the search would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong. and you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> let the record show that you refuse to answer the question. >> he finally gave the answer he wanted to give. >> i saw the suffering and consequences of a war. i did second think the search. would this be worth the sacrifice? we lost almost 1200 dead americans during that period was it required, necessary? >> how much of that exchange was political, how much was personal, and how much was related to our defense policy, mark? >> 92, 11, 13. [laughter] a lot of it was personal. one could not watch those hearings without feeling that there were a lot of personal grudges, even vendettas, being settl
the senate armed services committed tee this week. is senator john mccain grilling hagel about hagel's opposition to the surge in iraq in 2007. >> were you correct in your judgment. >> i would defer that to history. >> when you were right or wrong about the surge. >> i'll explain why i played those comments. >> i want to know if you were right or wrong. that is a direct question. i expect a direct answer. >> senator hagel explained he opposed the surge in iraq because it cost nearly 1200 american lives. >> i saw the consequences and the suffering and the horror of war. so i did question a surge. i always ask the question, is this going to be worth the sacrifice? because there will be sacrifice. >> that was hagel's emphasis on the cost factor. my question is this. his emphasis on the cost factor in military decisions, does it serve as a dodge to senator mccain's bullet? or did he mean this completely from the heart? and if he did, isn't he exactly the man we want over at the department of defense? >> he was talking about the cost of lives. >> that's correct. >> and i think in that exc
. gwen: john mccain was not talking to be population. he was talking about hispanic voters. karen, forgive me. 2007 sounds like an echo of some place we've been before. >> yeah, the things that people are talking about now -- enhanced security on the border. cracking down on hiring of illegal immigrants, a legalization program, all of those things were actually done, written into the law in 1986 and i looked back and looked at the signing ceremony where president reagan declareed that future generations of americans will be faithful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our boarders. that law -- borders. that law, the last immigration reform that this country attempted actually left the country the exact same problems it had then, only worse. back then there are three million to five million illegal immigrants. now there are 1 1. rather than settling this question of who gets to be an american, it's now more enflamed than it has been in memory and it's in part because of that law and its failures that i think we are where we are today. >> as i understand it, the decree tea
-- >> on fox news, john mccain recalled that hagel was very rough on bush, said he was the worst president we ever had, that the surge in iraq was the worst mistake since vietnam, and that is why republicans are down on him. >> john mccain has been shifting positions this week. this thing walks like a filibuster, quacks like a filibuster. it is the filibuster. i would like to point out a couple of the facts -- secretary of defense bill cohen, republican. secretary of defense of bob gates, republican. secretary of defense melvin laird, republican national. security adviser brent scowcroft, a republican. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, colin powell, republican did all of them have endorsed chuck hagel. who lost benghazi -- next it will be lost china, who prpromoted and is from captain to major? joe mccarthy will find out about it. >> go ahead, charles. >> and have as long a list of endorsements as you want and leave your lying eyes. -- believe your lying eyes. it is less about ideology or any thing is about competence. there's a democratic senator quoted after that disasters day o
on the hill. >> there is, it make no mistake about it. john mccain put it bluntly that his state would be a blue state. ann coulter has already, against marco rubio, saying that all you're doing is creating more democratic voters with a path to citizenship, just like you did with easy divorce, in her judgment. >> does she have a point, colby? >> as far as rubio is concerned? >> creating more democratic votes. >> they will " more democratic until republicans, with policies that attract their attention. when you bring people into the system as obama's healthcare does, that his policy. you will not change that with marco rubio's face. >> were you watching when the lights went out at the super bowl? it happens in washington a lot. >> the interruptions in service did not occur inside the building. >> the system worked -- that is what they said after watergate. [laughter] why did the lights go off in the superdome? the power co. said it was a faulty device they installed. in any case, it brings me to the question of infrastructure. a couple of years ago, the world economic forum rated as 23r
its duration and he, classed with his old friend, john mccain, and he's paying a price. at the end of the day, he'll probably be colyirmed but he has to wait another -- until the week after next to when the senators return to washington to see if he can be confirmed so i think it's an embarrassment to the president. that's what they were trying to do in some case. but enough republicans have said that they're going to vote for him ultimately but you have to wonder, is this really going to weaken senator hagel as a possible defense secretary. all the defense ministers from around the world are meeting next week in brussels. he hoped to be at the table but secretary panetta has to stay on because of this so i think senator reed was probably right when he said this was the worst example yet of partisanship in washington but who knows. something may come up in the next week and a half that might hurt senator hagel but the white house still seems somewhat confident but the question is how does he emerge from this? he -- everyone thought he would get through because he's a senator. but t
progressed, more and more republicans-- including john mccain and lindsey graham-- were coming out of a meeting with republicans saying "we're satisfied in the case of john mccain and graham, request the answers we got about benghazi from the white house. we're satisfied now. but we don't think other senators have had enough time. they're not on the arms services commit tee so we'll vote to hold this up now, when we come back in ten days we'll vote yes. it's not blocking, we just want to slow down." >> warner: what were the motivations? you had reid taking it to a vote where it was predicted he would lose and republicans said yeah we'll vote for it in another ten days but not now. what are the politics here? >> on the republican side, the politics have shifted from the center of the three amigos on national security, jindsy graham john mccain and senator kelly ayotte from new hampshire. it's shifted away from them. they had questions about benghazi which had been a major political issue since before the election. those seem to be moving off the table now. there are senators on the
with john mccain who apparently is convinced at this point in his life the most seminal event in u.s. history was not the constitutional convention, concord, lexington or-- it was the surge. and where you stood on the surge. >> woodruff: in iraq. >> in iraq that determines whether, in fact, you are a visionary or a retrograde. but i was-- it was a lousy performance by chuck hagel. he obviously decided he wasn't going get confrontational. when ted cruz, the junior senator from texas basically accused him of dishonesty, raised questions about his honor, and-- the idea that chuck hagel, that david and i know didn't say wait a minute, you know, and he did at the last question, i'm out of time now but let me ask you about this about your speeches and what you reported and didn't report. i mean at that point chuck hagel says let me tell you, you know, you've just raised a question, i don't care about time or time being out this is my time to tell you, you know, that you are absolutely wrong and-- and that was just missing completely. >> woodruff: so there is some reporting that hagel thi
endorsed john mccain as president. he went to the republican convention we are criticized, the democrat eck nominee barack obama and endorsed mccain and sarah palin. and when joe campaigned in 20080 with mccain, comes back to the senate and senate democrats make him the chairman of standing committee, contrast that with chuck hagel. 84% of americans for conservative action, voting record in his canner radio, voting for the bush tax cuts, voted for the war in iraq, voted against no child left behind but was a small government conservative, and republicans right now, particularly tea party, are not looking for converts like the democrats were with joe leiberman. they're looking for heretics. and they see in chuck hagel who never endorsed barack obama, was friendly with him, traveled with him, but didn't endorse him. they see this terrible heretic. and it's really, that is where the republicans are right now. they are looking for heretics instead of converts. and i think it's apparent in the tea party. but i think it's apparent in the ranks of the entire ranks of the party. >> you have effecti
. number one, this comes from people like john mccain and others who very much oppose enhanced interrogation. >> john and i argued on many occasions. >> rose: exactly right. and he has some experience, as obviously he does. and other people, a, because of american values, even stanley mcchrystal has said this. >> i read his book. it's a good book. >> rose: all right. do you agree with his position? >> no. >> rose: and when we say "enhanced interrogation" why don't we call it what many people believe it ought to be called, torture. >> because it's not. >> rose: what's the difference? >> the difference is we went through a very long, difficult, and elaborate process with the justice department before we started the enhanced interrogation programs, we said "tell us where the red line is." at the agency as we were dealing with the need to find ways to get more intelligence from the people that we're capturing, the conclusion was we needed to be able to use more aggressive techniques. but nobody wanted to use techniques that put us over the line into the area of torture because of t
friend, arizona senator john mccain made clear, they haven't forgotten. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference to the surge being the most dangerous. >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. i would like an answer on whether you were right or wrong, then you're free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> well let the record show that you refused to answer the question. now please go ahead. >> well, if you'd like me to explain why ... >> i'd actually like an answer, yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that, as i've already said. my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it. and your
to president obama asking him to withdraw the hagel nomination. but on sunday arizona senator john mccain said president obama's choice deserved an up or down vote. >> i do not believe that chuck hagel, who is a friend of mine, is qualified to be secretary of defense. but i do believe that elections have consequences. >> woodruff: today 18 g.o.p. senators joined with democrats to end the filibuster. hours later, the senate confirmed hagel, 58-41. mainly along party lines. for more we turn to mark thompson, "time" magazine's national security reporter. welcome back to the program. so after all the storm and the fury from republicans, enough of them voted to let this confirmation takes place. what was this all about? >> basically it was on valentine's day that the senate would not let this proceed to an up-or-down vote. instead basically the republicans were looking for something to derail the nomination so for 12 days the nation waited essentially leon panetta was running over to nato and back to his walnut farm. we really didn't have a true secretary of defense other than this lame duck. today
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)